W3C | TAG | Previous: 24-25 Sep ftf meeting | Next: 21 Oct

Minutes of 7 October 2002 TAG teleconference

Nearby: IRC log · Teleconference details · issues list · www-tag archive

1. Administrative

  1. Roll call: SW (Chair), TBL, NW, PC, RF, DO, PC, CL, IJ (Scribe). Regrets: DC
  2. Accepted 24-25 Sep ftf meeting minutes
  3. Accepted monthly summary (sent).
  4. Accepted this agenda
  5. Next meeting: 21 Oct. (14 Oct is holiday in Canada and US)

1.2 Completed actions

  1. TB 2002/09/24: Send a draft email to tag@w3.org regarding XML namespaces 1.1 spec in last call (Done, then email sent to www-tag).
  2. NW 2002/09/24: Draft an email (for TAG review) suggesting to the HTML WG that XHTML 2.0 should use XLink for hyperlink constructs, or provide a technical explanation why that's not a good design decision. (Done, then email sent to www-tag).

1.3 Meeting planning

  1. Action IJ 2002/09/24: Report to plenary meeting organizers that the TAG does not intend to have a ftf meeting at that time. [Done]
  2. Action IJ 2002/09/24: Begin planning a meeting for Feb 2003 in Boston. [Alert sent to admin folks]
  3. Action IJ 2002/09/24: Find out more administrative information about TAG ftf meeting in Nov 2002. [Done; see meeting page]
  4. Action IJ 2002/09/24: Send email to Steve Bratt requesting slot at AC meeting for arch discussion, distinct from TAG reporting slot. Ask the AB if they agree to sharing slots at AC meeting. [Done] The AB has declined the offer, because the AB thinks it will need more time to do its own update.
  5. Action IJ, SW 2002/09/24: Compile list of process questions AB postponed so that first TAG could answer. [Done; TAG-only]
  6. Action SW 2002/09/24: Take to the mailing list the top three TAG questions for the AC (for Nov 2002). (Sent to TAG; for discussion 21 Oct)

The TAG discussed its presentation to the Advisory Committee at the Nov 2002 AC meeting.

Action PC: Respond toIJ's summary of process issues (TAG-only) from AB regarding TAG charter. Also, clarify meaning of "short-term resolutions" in charter.

2. Technical

  1. xlinkScope-23
  2. Arch doc revision schedule
  3. RFC3023Charset-21

2.1 xlinkScope-23

See issue xlinkScope-23. SW began discussion on the topic of TAG communication on this issue from the 24-25 Sep ftf meeting

  1. xlinkScope-23
    1. Action CL 2002/08/30: Request that the HTML WG to publish their recent work related to linking (through HTML CG, WG, or whatever works). [Done]
[Ian]

SW: TBL and I felt we might have done a better job in communication. IJ sent me a request: that the chairs make a statement about the normative standing of communications from the TAG. My response to this is: if not been through W3C Rec track process, not normative.

TB: I think SW's assertion is true. However, the TAG was chartered to document what is architecturally sound; so other groups should "pay attention" to our communications even if they are not strictly normative.
IJ: I am looking for clarification about the phrase "Short term resolutions" in the charter: "Short-term issue resolutions are subject to appeal by Advisory Committee representatives; refer to the appeal process described in section 6 of the Process Document."
[TBray]
Disagree with scribe's formulation slightly: even though it may not be normative, part of Director's role is to do oversight on architectural consistency, and since such consistency is in the TAG's purview, a WG chair might very reasonably worry about an outstanding TAG opinion that there are arch problems
[Ian]
TB: The issues don't go away, whether the communications are normative or not.
TBL: If you disagree with us, it's important that you tell us. I think we cautious that our communications clearly state when TAG discussion is the start, not end, of technical discussion. Some discussion had already taken place on public lists, but discussion needs to happen in one (public) place.
[Discussion of the use of the term "normative" in this context.]
TBL: The Arch Doc is not normative in the sense of other documents on the W3C Recommendation track.
CL: Do we encourage people to design specs in line with findings?
TBL: Relationship between an arch spec and another is context-sensitive. It's reasonable for people to challenge the architecture doc in some circumstances.: Findings are not Recommendations. Even if communications not "normative", difference of opinions are important.
TB: Couldn't hurt to say again that the ftf opinions were expressed to start discussion. I'd like to talk about strategy about moving xlink issue forward.
PC: We've already commented that we haven't gotten enough feedback yet from W3C participants. I want to encourage the TAG to use its resources to push its WD forward aggressively.
[DaveO]
I had proposed that we have a matrix of all the possible designs and possible syntaxes
[Ian]
IJ: What is a "short term" resolution as the TAG charter says?
SW: I think that TAG findings are short-term resolutions.
[TBray]
agree with Stuart
[Ian]
SW: But we haven't had to face "dispute resolution"
IJ: I suggest that PC in his review of process issues try to comment on the "short-term resolution" part of our charter; whether it applies in practice.
[Moving on to technical issue of moving xlinkScope-23 forward.]
CL: See my email from a moment ago.
SW: How to we build consensus moving forward, in light of lots of discussion since ftf meeting.
[Zakim]
Timbl, you wanted to discuss direction specifically for the XLink question
[Ian]
TBL: I am not sure we are converging yet on this issue. TAG could help by charting the discussion space. Some discussion, for example, has been about "why XLink does not provide what XHTML needs". There are other pieces as well (requirements for XHTML, requirements for mixing namespaces, etc.) Mail threads not sufficiently powerful to resolve this one yet. A matrix of issues (as DO pointed out) would help. Also provide history and indicate where we must move beyond history (possibly with apologies).
DO: I agree with TBL here. I also agree with Noah Mendelsohn - more clearly state the costs and benefits of different proposals.
TB: I agree with DO and TBL that it's urgent that we structure this debate.: A matrix of alternatives and trade-offs would be very helpful. I am optimistic. I also think it's important to reach out the HTML WG. Will the HTML WG be interested in engaging debate on this? How do we encourage the HTML WG to participate in these discussions?
SW: How about participation in the matrix summary?
[NW notes that XLink WG charter expires at end of year.]
TB: I sent a comment on how to revise XLink to get rid of 90% of xlink:type and got friendly replies from people. Such a change might help build consensus.
IJ: I support a TAG teleconf inviting a few people to hammer out consensus.
TBL: Some concerns that it might focus too much on rehashing history.
[TAG chuckles at "The Matrix" jokes.]
[Norm]
"There is no xlink..."
[Ian]
CL: Need to include the SMIL and XForms folks in the party; find out rationale for their decisions,: (e.g., find out why xforms last call doc removed xlink) And ask SVG WG why it helped them.
PC: I urged us to have this debate in public so that we could understand whether it is feasible for a group to use XLink (or a slightly modified alternative). The result of the process may be that XLink Rec needs work, and other WGs may want to include links in specs where they feel XLink is inappropriate. I think we may end up with a "split decision", where we recommend XLink for some cases and nothing in other cases. I think that's where we are today. Unless we speak to that problem, we'll just go around in circles.
DO: I agree with PC.
NW: I think PC is probably right. I have not been getting optimistic vibes from the discussion thus far. At the end of the day, some people will just do linking in their own namespaces, and no technical, political, or social issue will convince them; and we should accept that.
CL (re: PC's comment): I can't imagine we would issue a Solomonic pronouncement. I think we need more discussion focusing on technical needs.
TBL: We need to consider requirements from different areas, but we may rule some of them out.
[TBray]
agrees with TimBL on this
[Ian]
TBL: You can use xhtml:a as well.
TBL wanted to agree to as many possible outcomes, including new xlink, using html:a in other languages, and so on.
[Ian]
TB: I disagree with NW in part about whether people will dig in their heels. We need to tease out technical issues. If people continue to hold positions based on other reasons (e.g., emotional), those reasons probably won't hold.
TBL: Email will be easier than teleconf to move issue forward.
[TBray]
agree with TBL
[Ian]
SW: Who would like to edit a matrix?
IJ: I suggest surveying different groups to find out why they chose/did not chose xlink, what pros /cons are for them?
DO: I think we should prime the pump and send a proposal to the community. I have expressed my opinion previously that I have concerns about spending a lot of time on this issue, but now that we have chosen to do so, I think we should kick off discussion with a proposal.
[Discussion of structuring follow-up]
[Chris]
seconded - Go Stuart!
[Ian]
Action SW: Draw up a neutral proposal (due 21 Oct) summarizing threads and debating points on xlinkScope-23.
[TBray]
I'd like the minutes to reflect that I've expressed concern about lack of input except for initial statements from HTML WG people like Steven Pemberton & Shane McCarron, especially given that some new-sounding things have been said in the last couple of weeks
So I don't think we can make real progress until their opinions/analyses/examples are part of the discussion

2.2 Architecture document revision schedule

IJ discussed his schedule and intention to return to work on Arch Doc around 17 October.

  1. Draft schedule for next arch document:
    1. 28 Oct: TAG review of whatever current draft is starts.
    2. 4 Nov: TAG closes issues about draft.
    3. 11 Nov: Final discussion, request to publish.
    4. 13 Nov: Next TR draft published.

Other Architecture document actions

  1. Completed Action TBL: 2002/07/15: Create a table of URI properties. (Done)
  2. Action RF 2002/09/25: On the topic of revising RFC2396, indicate to the TAG what the relevant IETF fora are for input.
    RF: Join uri@w3.org (archive). I will send a message about the relevant issue when it comes up.

Still open:

  1. Finish discussion of feedback on arch document.:
    1. Summary of comments
    2. Comments from Graham Klyne
    3. Comments from Daniel Dardailler
  2. Action DC 2002/08/12: Ask www-tag for volunteers to work with TAG (and possibly IETF) on HTTP URI stuff; CRISP. [This action supersedes the previous action: Ask IESG when IETF decided not to use HTTP URIs to name protocols.] Sent. Awaiting reply.
  3. Action RF 2002/09/25: Propose a rewrite of a principle (rationale -> principle -> constraint) to see whether the TAG prefers this approach. It was suggested that the example be about HTTP/REST, as part of section 4.
  4. Action TBL 2002/09/25: Propose text on information hiding.
  5. Action CL 2002/09/25: Redraft section 3, incorporating CL's existing text and TB's structural proposal (see minutes of 25 Sep ftf meeting on formats).
    CL: I hope to have this by end of week.
  6. Action NW 2002/09/25: Write some text for a section on namespaces (docs at namespace URIs, use of RDDL-like thing).

    NW: In progress.

  7. Action RF 2002/09/25: On the topic of revising RFC2396, indicate to the TAG what the relevant IETF fora are for input.
  8. Action DO/NW 2002/0925: Write up a piece for arch doc on versioning.

2.3 RFC3023Charset-21

Having reviewed IJ's proposed changes to finding and reply from Reagle, the TAG agreed to close issue RFC3023Charset-21.

2.4 Postponed

Findings in progress

See also: findings.

  1. Findings in progress:
    1. deepLinking-25
      1. TB 2002/09/09: Revise "Deep Linking" in light of 9 Sep minutes. Status of finding?
  2. Findings versioning
    1. SW 2002/09/09: Discuss with IJ versioning of findings. Pending. SW and IJ have discussed latest accepted v. latest draft.

Issues

  1. namespaceDocument-8
    1. Action TB 2002/09/24: Revise the RDDL document to use RDF rather than XLink. Goal of publication as W3C Note.
    2. Action NW 2002/09/25: Write some text for an Arch Doc section on namespaces (docs at namespace URIs, use of RDDL-like thing).
  2. contentPresentation-26
    1. Action CL 2002/09/24: Draft text on the principle of separation of content and presentation for the Arch Doc.
  3. rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
    1. Action DC 2002/09/24: Write to Schema WG to say that TAG is interested in progress on this issue. Copy Jonathan Borden and Brian McBride.
  4. uriMediaType-9:
  5. Status of URIEquivalence-15. Relation to Character Model of the Web (chapter 4)? See text from TimBL on URI canonicalization and email from Martin in particular. See more comments from Martin.
    1. CL 2002/08/30: Ask Martin Duerst for suggestions for good practice regarding URI canonicalization issues, such as %7E v. &7e and suggested use of lower case. At 16 Sep meeting, CL reports pending; action to send URI to message to TAG.
  6. Status of discussions with WSA WG about SOAP/WSDL/GET/Query strings?

2.5 New issues?

Ian Jacobs, for TimBL
Last modified: $Date: 2002/11/05 00:04:26 $